During a radio interview he was asked about a statement he made in 2014 on Twitter in answer to this question put to him by one of his 2.9 million followers: 'I honestly don't know what I would do if I were pregnant with a kid with Down Syndrome. Real ethical dilemma.'
Dawkins pinged back: 'Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.'
It's revealing that both parties recognised that they were talking about a human child, but only the questioner seemed to have any qualms about killing the child.
Prompted by Brendan O'Connor of RTE Radio in Ireland in early May, Dawkins tried to rationalise his Twitter response, specifically why it would be "immoral" to have a baby with Down's Syndrome. He told listeners:
Given the amount of suffering in the world probably does not go down — probably goes up — compared to having another child who does not have Down's Syndrome, that's what I meant.
The scientist was then asked how knew 'it increases the amount of suffering in the world'. His reply:
I don't know for certain . . . it seems to me to be plausible that if a child has any kind of disability, you would probably increase the amount of happiness in the world more by having another child instead.
O'Connor asked what his evidence was for that. He could respond only with: 'I have no direct evidence, no.'
British newspaper columnist, Dominic Lawson, who has a daughter with Down's Syndrome, gives some factual information that makes plain how scientists tend to over-reach in their declarations:
If Dawkins had bothered to do any research, he would have come across a peer-reviewed paper in the October 2011 issue of the American Journal of Medical Genetics, which surveyed 300 people with Down's aged 12 and over. It concluded: 'Nearly 99 per cent of people with DS indicated that they were happy with their lives, 97 per cent liked who they are and 96 per cent liked how they looked.'
That's a weird kind of 'suffering'.
But, Dawkins might retort: what about the families of children with Down's? Here again, the American Journal of Medical Genetics has done the work. Five years ago, it published three surveys covering more than 2,000 families and concluded: 'All three had similar positive findings, with parents/guardians and siblings overwhelmingly expressing love and pride for their family member [with Down's].
This is certainly true of my family: our younger daughter Domenica has Down's Syndrome and, at the risk of sounding soppy, she is a whirlwind of joy.
Tomorrow she celebrates her 26th birthday; her friends will come for a picnic at our house to join the family for that special occasion. Such moments — and, indeed, lives — defy the glib generalisations of Richard Dawkins.
Although it has now been forgotten, the person who asked Dawkins for advice about Down's followed up with another question via Twitter: 'What about people on the autistic spectrum? Where would you draw the line?'
Dawkins answered: 'People on that spectrum have a great deal to contribute, maybe even an enhanced ability in some respects. DS not enhanced.'
This suggests that his real objection to the idea of voluntarily having a child with Down's is not so much a horror of 'suffering' but an unspoken disapproval of people with no 'societal utility' — as if those with below average intelligence are incapable of "contributing".
It is perhaps no coincidence that Richard Dawkins is a man whose most well-known works are a development of the insights of Charles Darwin. The great Victorian scientist had strong views about the risks of overbreeding among 'inferior' types.
These were turned into full-blown eugenicism by [Darwin's] cousin, Sir Francis Galton. That doctrine had terrible consequences in the 20th century, not just in Germany, where it led to the compulsory euthanasia of tens of thousands of children then termed 'handicapped', but even in supposedly civilised Sweden, where forced sterilisation was practised until 1975.
I am not accusing Dawkins of any sympathy for such policies. But I still feel some anger at his opinion that to bring a person like my daughter into the world is 'immoral'. To be precise: I am angry about his ignorance rather than about any insensitivity, in asserting that people like my daughter are a net addition to the world's misery.
Lawson also refers to the Scottish mother, Lynn Murray, whose daughter Rachel has Down's and who runs the Don't Screen Us Out campaign. Murray and Rachel are on the right of the picture at the top of this post.
Murray said Dawkins' comments were absurd:
By saying what he has about people with Down’s Syndrome, Richard Dawkins is offending a whole social group in one fell swoop, perpetuating old stereotypes. His opinions by his own admission are uninformed.
My daughter has Down’s Syndrome, she is 21 now and it’s been a privilege to see the positive effect she has had on so many people over the years. She has enriched lives.
He upset myself and many other people in 2014 when he said it was ‘immoral’ to give birth to a child with Down’s Syndrome.
Years later, when he has had much time to consider his opinions, he still persists with his discriminatory, inflammatory narrative, declaring that a specific group of people, just by their very existence make the world a worse place.
All humans are different, we all need support at different times and nobody’s ‘perfect’; that is part of humanity and what makes society rich and what makes life interesting.
What, then, of Iceland, which is often cited as a country where Down's Syndrome has almost ceased to appear?
The following information is from CBS News, which reported from Iceland in 2017:
Since prenatal screening tests were introduced in Iceland in the early 2000s, the vast majority of women - close to 100 percent - who received a positive test for Down's Syndrome terminated their pregnancy.
While the tests are optional, the government states that all expectant mothers must be informed about availability of screening tests, which reveal the likelihood of a child being born with Down's Syndrome. Around 80 to 85 percent of pregnant women choose to take the prenatal screening test, according to Landspitali University Hospital in Reykjavik.
When Thordis Ingadottir was pregnant with her third child at the age of 40, she took the screening test. The results showed her chances of having a child with Down's Syndrome were very slim, odds of 1 in 1,600. However, the screening test is only 85 percent accurate. That year, 2009, three babies were born with Down syndrome in Iceland, including Ingadottir's daughter Agusta, who is now 7.
Since the birth of her daughter, Ingadottir has become an activist for the rights of people with Down's Syndrome.
As Agusta grows up, "I will hope that she will be fully integrated on her own terms in this society. That's my dream," Ingadottir said. "Isn't that the basic needs of life? What kind of society do you want to live in?"
Geneticist Kari Stefansson is the founder of deCODE Genetics, a company that has studied nearly the entire Icelandic population's genomes. He has a unique perspective on the advancement of medical technology. "My understanding is that we have basically eradicated, almost, Down's Syndrome from our society - that there is hardly ever a child with Down's Syndrome in Iceland anymore," he said.
[CBSNews] asked Stefansson, "What does the 100 percent termination rate, you think, reflect about Icelandic society?" He replied:
"It reflects a relatively heavy-handed genetic counseling," he said. "And I don't think that heavy-handed genetic counseling is desirable. … You're having impact on decisions that are not medical, in a way."
Stefansson noted, "I don't think there's anything wrong with aspiring to have healthy children, but how far we should go in seeking those goals is a fairly complicated decision."
According to Hulda Hjartardottir, head of the Prenatal Diagnosis Unit at Landspitali University Hospital: "We try to do as neutral counseling as possible, but some people would say that just offering the test is pointing you towards a certain direction." Indeed, more than 4 out of 5 pregnant women in Iceland opt for the prenatal screening test.
So, when it comes down to the reasons why Icelanders abort their "suspect" babies the main ones are that there is social pressure to conform, bolstered by the official structures through the testing and counseling regimes, and a certain fear of the unknown.
It is clear that, as in many societies, there is no guiding principle in the parents' life - I mean a belief in God's providence - that might lift them out of the mundane and into a realm of new opportunities for the enjoyment of life in all its variety. In other words, we might say "modern" people lack a sense of the spiritual and of enchantment, which opens up on to a world of joy that the Down's Syndrome families experience. If only Richard Dawkins, in all his brilliance, were wise enough to see what people with Down's Syndrome might teach him!
Ω Have a look at
my Peace and Mind newsletter on Substack.
Subscribe there - It's free! - to be notified of all postings.
No comments:
Post a Comment